The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has banned as many as 95 advertisements out of 125 complaints it received across segments during December 2016. Out of 95 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 58 belonged to the Healthcare category, four to the Education category, followed by nine in Personal Care Category, 10 in the Food & Beverages category, and 14 advertisements from other categories, the self-regulatory industry body said in a statement.

The CCC found the following claims of 58 advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.

1.Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Heal-O-Kind Nanofine Gel): The advertisement’s visual showing a mother and daughter holding a cracker (phuljari), when read in conjunction with the advertisement headline “chodo jalne ki fikr, Diwali manao befikr” suggests that one may celebrate Diwali (bursting crackers) in carefree manner. ie. suggesting that even if one were to get burns, there is no need to worry thus implying a careless attitude and showing disregard for safety and encouraging negligence.

2.Life fitness point: In the context of an advertisement for a gym , the visual showing a woman’s buttock (in non-Gym attire), read in conjunction with the tagline, “Boldest bums of South Bhopal now gymming a blast!”, is vulgar, and indecent which is likely in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and propriety to cause grave and widespread offence.

3.Dhanwantri Pharmaceutical (Swarn Madhu): The advertisement’s claim, “Removes – Weakness of brain – Weakness of body – Lack of Sexual power – Azoospermia, and makes you healthy”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy data, and are misleading. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for sexual problems (lack of sexual power), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Act (D&C Act).

4.Sri Maharishi Pharma: The advertisement’s claim, “Diabetes will be cured within 20 days. Also all related diabetic/problems like joint pain, itching on feet, back bone pain, gastric issues, sneezing, cold, all these will be cured by Sri Maharishi Pharma”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for Diabetes, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act). Further, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. In addition the claim, “If it does not cure within 20 days your money will be return to you”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded with the money back, and is misleading.

5.Dr. Titus’s Centre for Sexual & Mental Health (Dr. Titus P Varghese): The advertisement’s claim, “Cure for Homosexuality”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence, and is misleading by exaggeration.

6.Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd. (Back pain roll on): The advertisement’s claim, “Amrutanjan Back Pain Roll-On ka special ayurvedic formula kaam kare bass tees second mein”, implies that the product will provide relief within 30 seconds, whereas, as per the findings of the Nielsen study, the product “starts” acting within 30 seconds. It was concluded that the claim is misleading by implication.

7.Anmol Tila: The advertisement’s claim, “Indriya vardhak” (enhancing the penis size) was not substantiated, and is misleading. Also, this claim is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.

8.Magic Wings Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “For the first time in M.P., Dr. Neha Arora uses modern science’s most advanced technology i.e Bio stem Therapy, Cell Regeneration Therapy and Decompression therapy to control incurable diseases”, “Gradual loss of Vision”, “Old paralysis” and “Muscular Dystrophy (more than 100 successful treatment) , cerebral atrophy, cerebral palsy”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Further, specific to the claims implying treatment for gradual loss of vision (Blindness) and Paralysis, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.

9.Herbal Daily (Herbal Daily Haldi): The advertisement’s claims, “Herbal Daily Haldi – It is a Natural tonic to treat millions of people having the problem of Sinus, Cough cold, Asthma & Allergy, Arthritis, Uric Acid, Joint knee pain, Weight loss”, and “100% Natural Treat”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence for the advertised product for its efficacy. Further, the consumer testimonials were not considered to be acceptable as authentic, primary claim support data. Also there was a concern expressed for promotion of this “food” product as a medical product implying treatment for medical claims. The advertisement is also misleading by ambiguity as it states “100% Natural Treat” implying “treatment”.

10.SKS Ayurveda Impex Pvt. Ltd. (SKS Ayurveda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “SKS – Increase height by adopting ayurved,” “This drug do proper blood circulation in our body,” & “Consciousness to hormones. After 90 days use of medicine you will yourself see that you have increased your height.” and a misleading visual, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

11.Astha Clinic (AJM): The advertisement’s claims, “White Spot – Successful Treatment” and a misleading visual, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

12.Micropark Wellness (Muslinites Range): The advertisement’s claims, “1.1X10 Muslinites Gold Capsule,” “Now Muslinites Tripti Oil is also available,” and “For Best results use with MusliNites Tripti Oil,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation the D&C Act.

13.Izda Healthcare (Six Foot Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “SIX FOOT – Helpful in Physical Development” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

14.Chitransh Homeo Hall: The advertisement’s claim, “Treatment of white spots, psoriasis, acne, nails, hair diseases from roots,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

15.Cenezoic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (Diaba Dops Liquid): The advertisement’s claim, “Now sugar treatment from the roots,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

16.Hair Grow: The advertisement’s claims, “HAIR GROW – Grow natural hair in 120 days with no age limit, whether bald from childhood”, “Lifetime freedom from unwanted hair”, “Money back if you find no effect” and “Solution to baldness & every kind of hair problems,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

17.Delhi Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “For a happy married life, meet us”, “Safe & Successful Treatment of Sex Problems” and a misleading visual were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

18.Dr. Gupta’s Skin & Hair Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “White spots, Baldness, etc. can be cured from the roots by Homeopathy. Homeopathy is the cheapest treatment and disease is cured from the roots,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

19.Dr. Sanjeev Cancer & Liver Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “For the first time Indian Scientist Dr Sanjeev Bhardwaj in his research on cancer has seen remarkable improvement in last stage cancer patients. Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj has found alternative treatment to chemo and radiation. He has achieved amazing results via this Advanced Treatment for cancer and PET CT Scan reports of patients have shown quick decrease in cancer”, “Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, has stated in his study that while treating patients in the last stage of Cancer, their PET CT Scan reports showed quick decrease in cancer and near death patients reported”, “surprising improvement”, “India s first Ayurveda Cancer Super-speciality Clinic with PET CT Scan Facility” and “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Company”, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

20.Naaz Stone Cut: The advertisement’s claim, “By Consuming Naaz Cut Capsule+ Syrup, kidney/urinal stone gets removed. It does not develop again and no need of operation”, was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

22.Ratan Ayurvedic (Ratans Heightop Syrup): The advertisement’s claims, “True companion in higher thinking” and “Heightop is helpful in increase the height of your self-confidence. Your Helper in making you very different and attractive,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

24.Dr. Herring German Homoeo Company (Dr Herring German Homoeo Co Product): The advertisement’s claims, “Increases Height” and “Dissolving stone from kidney,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

25.Sidhji Sevashram (Fakiri Tilla): The advertisement’s claim, “FAKIRI TILLA – Take 5 drops daily, and see the manly vigour,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

26.Sri Ganesh Nisargopchar Kendra: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of Paralysis,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

28.Dr Rajguru Hair Care & Research Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “HRS is an effective treatment method revised by famous Trichologist Dr. Ajay Rajguru which is prepared by Plant Stem Cells, Homeopathy, Bio Tissue Salts and herbs and is global standard and most beneficial. In which hair diseases are cured from the roots,” where the reference to baldness claims was found to be misleading by implication. Further the claim, “HRS Therapy is best option for hair transplant with low cost. – Safe in any,” and a misleading visual were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

29.Suneha Health Cut Care (Suneha Fat Churna): The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce Obesity without any side effect,” “SUNEHA FAT CUT is an ayurvedic churna which reduces your stomach without making it weak and reduces excessive fat. Doesn’t let increase stomach and obesity again. Makes body beautiful by making figure normal. Very beneficial for the ladies who has got obesity after delivery,” and misleading visuals were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and The Drugs & Cosmetics Act.

30.Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin): The advertisement’s claim relating to remedy for “Premature Ejaculation» was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

31.Nurture Health care: The advertisement’s claim relating to remedy for “Premature Ejaculation» was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

32.Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin capsules and oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Cure for Symptoms like Premature Ejaculation, Erectile Dysfunction, etc.,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

33.Matru-Chhaya Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of childless couples” implies an assurance of prevention or cure of infertility, and this was not substantiated with clinical evidence. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. Specific to the claims related to successful treatment for Infertility (childless couple), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.

35.Guduchi The Ayurvedism (Obesidat): The advertisement’s claim, “lose six kilograms in just 12 weeks”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for obesity, and the visual showing obese persons, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.

36.Vcare Skin & Slimming Clinic (Vcare Slim N Skin Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “Reduce weight in just 24 hours”, is misleading by ambiguity and implication, as the advertiser is offering treatment for weight reduction in 24 sessions. Also, the advertiser did not submit any evidence of efficacy of their treatment and prove the weight reduction claims.

37.SBF Healthcare and Research Centre Private Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “Cost Effective” and “An option for people with Diabetes or Heart Disease” were not adequately substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading. It was noted that while the treatment is “scientifically proven nonsurgical treatment”, as there could be other such scientifically proven non-surgical treatments, claiming it be the “World’s first” is misleading by exaggeration.

39.Abbott Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (Pediasure Vanilla Delight): For the advertisement’s claim, “Almost 50% – Less Infection, More Growth” it was concluded that while the paper might have been published in «Clinical Pediatrics», the contents do not unequivocally and adequately support this claim. Also the CCC disagreed that the values can be rounded off by several units to 50 as done for the claim. Thus, the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication.

40.Nature And Science Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claims, “Eliminate Obesity, get healthy life”, “FAT.YPAR Enriched with Shilajeet” and “FAT.YPAR Juice is made by ayurvedic herbs. It is helpful in removing additional fat from the body. It also controls weight and makes body athletic. It also does not allow body weakness to come as it is enriched with Medohar Guggul and Shilajeet”, “For getting more benefits also use FAT.YPAR Capsules”, “DICURA PLUS SYRUP Worried from Sugar (Diabetes)”, “Dicura Plus Syrup from the first 15 days, controls the sugar related problems such as going for urination repeatedly, burning sensation in soles, pain in joints, Repeatedly being thirsty, Stiffness of hands and legs, etc.” and “Dicura plus controls the sugar in one month” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

41.Juvenor Pharmaceuticals (Muslinites Gold): The advertisement’s claim, “Helps in boosting vitality with the power of Swarna Bhasma Muslinites gold helps in overcoming fatigue, tiredness and revitalizing your energies with the proven benefits of time tested Ayurvedic Herbs like Musli, Shilajeet, Shatavari & Ashwagandha.” The advertisement also refers to MusliNite Tripti oil. The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation the D&C Act, specific for the parts on improvement of capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure.

42.Oplus Heart Center: The advertisement’s claims, “First time in Jharkhand successful treatment of heart blockage without operation, cuts, bypass and Angioplasty” and “Successful treatment of hundreds of patients till now” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation the DMR Act, specific for the parts on curing of heart diseases.

43.D S Research Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “An expert team of ayurvedacharya under guidance of the research team has been treating cancer patients successfully for over 50 years now. We shall be showcasing our success stories and spreading the message of Ancient Ayurveda based Nutrient Energy Treatment as a potent weapon against cancer” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

44.Kundan Kidney Care Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Now treatment of kidney fail patients is possible” and “We are treating kidney fail patients from last 35 years” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

45.Sri Sai Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “There is a successful treatment of reducing obesity in Ayurveda” and “Obesity can be eliminated by Utwardan Kiya through Panchkarma” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

46.Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda & Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Svarna Amruta Prashana is a unique Ayurveda Sanskara to boost intellect and memory in children’s. Camp being conducted by experienced team of Doctors who have helped lacs of children’s through this programme” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

47.Kalpa Foundation: The advertisement’s claims, “Are you afflicted by white spots, leprosy disease, rotten absorbed and deformed nails or other skin disease and fed up after doing treatment, then come to our hospital and gain the benefit through Ayurvedic Medicine and Ancient Technique, whose benefit has taken by hundreds of patients till now” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

48.Formula-Ten: The advertisement’s claim, “Useful homeopathic Gutika for complaints like Impotency, Premature Ejaculation” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

49.Stammering Relief Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Treatment in only two weeks, don’t of the D&C Act.

50.Dr Nawal Kishore Hospital & Research Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Cure Diabetes with Stem Cell Therapy Obesity, Allergy, Thyroid, and Lipid Clinic” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

51.Praveen Surana Deaf Cure Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Remove deafness and increase hearing capacity”, “Now deafness due to dried nerves and all types of disease of ear are not incurable. Cure deafness and improve your hearing loss. All types of deafness is been successfully removed without operation. Due to which patient starts listening in the first hour of treatment and can do treatment of in creation the capacity of hearing in construction of the future”, “Good news for all aged people suffering from deafness. Removes Deafness”, and “Remove deafness successfully without operation. Removes accurately deafness due to birth/ because of age/ side effect of medicine, hole in ear drums, Pus, dirt, smell. This treatment is a boon effective for deaf dumb also” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

55.Apoorv Hi Tech: The advertisement’s claims, “Get Rid of obesity… Free from obesity and its related diseases. Freedom from obesity and diabetes increases your life upto 10 years,” and the advertisement’s misleading visual was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

56.Adila Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (Asth Prash): The advertisement’s claims, “Keep distance from Inhaler (Pump)”, “100% better and fast result than any other Chawanprash”, “For Asthama Patients ,Ramban Medicine”, “ Asthprash Treatment of all these problems” and “Relief from Asthama and smoking cough” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

57.Adila Biotech Pvt Ltd (Asth Prash): The advertisement’s claims, “One Medicine Six Work. Beneficial in Respiratory related diseases. Beneficial in Acute and Chronic Bronchitis. Gives relief in asthma and breathlessness. Reduces the side effects of pollution. Increases the immunity power. Helpful in removing the Taar of Tobacco”, “Sure shot medicine for Asthma Patients”, “Keep distance from inhaler” and “Use Surely for healthy life” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

58.SBS Biotech Unit-II (More Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Helpful in Stunted Growth”, and “Beneficial ayurvedic capsule for growth deficiency” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

EDUCATION:-

The CCC found following advertisements of educational institutes by 4 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’:

Siva Sivani Institute of Management, Oriental Group of Educational Institutions, Datatec Group Of Institutions (Hannas Eng Inst) and Goodwill Institute of Security System and Automation Technology.

PERSONAL CARE:

1.Emami Ltd. (Fair & Handsome 5 Action Fairness): The advertisement’s claim «long-lasting» implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product. However this was not substantiated and is misleading by implication. There was also disagreement on the modification of the advertisement by way of addition of a disclaimer “on regular use” as this was in contravention of the ASCI code on disclaimers Clause 1. The complaint was Upheld.

2.Emami Limited (Fair and Handsome): The advertisement shows the protagonist with dark complexion being unattractive to girls, implying people with darker skin colour to be inferior and likely to be ignored by the opposite sex. It was concluded that the advertisement stereotypes people based on skin colour, implying people with darker skin colour to be inferior and likely to be ignored by the opposite sex and people with fair complexion to be more attractive drawing female attention. The advertisement contravened Clause 1 of the Guidelines of Advertising for Skin Lightening or Fairness Improvement Products (“Advertising should not communicate any discrimination as a result of skin colour. These ads should not reinforce negative social stereotyping on the basis of skin colour. Specifically, advertising should not directly or implicitly show people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, unattractive, unhappy, depressed or concerned. These ads should not portray people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, at a disadvantage of any kind, or inferior, or unsuccessful in any aspect of life….”). The complaint was Upheld.

3.Emami Limited (Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream): The advertisement’s claim, “breakthrough new formulation, “New”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading as the formulation called as new was of year 2013 and hence was not “New” any more as per the ASCI guidelines for claiming “New”. Further the claim, “Long lasting fairness”, implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product, which was not substantiated adequately over a reasonable time period by the advertiser by objective measurements and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also, the qualifier “On regular usage, twice a day” was therefore considered to be in in contravention of the ASCI code on disclaimers Clause 1. The complaint was Upheld.

4.Advanced Hair Studio: The advertisement’s claim, “World’s largest company in hair replacement and hair retention,” is misleading by exaggeration. Also the claim, “4 unique procedures” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. Further the claims, “No room for compromise” and “delivers a head full of hair” were not substantiated with proof of transformations achieved and treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. Lastly the claim, “Best of both worlds” and “Get Expert Advice” are misleading by ambiguity and implication as the claim, “Best of both worlds” was considered to be a vague statement and the claim, “Get Expert Advice” was not substantiated .

5.Greek Retail P. Limited Inocos Herbal Industries (Radyance Instant Skin Brightener): The advertisement’s claims, “Five shades fairer in two minutes”, “Instant Fairness by five shades”, “getting five shades fairer in mere minutes–and without the pain or high cost (40,000-50,000 rupees) of skin peels and laser treatments” are false, not substantiated with product efficacy data, are misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of experience and knowledge. The online video and the advertorial displays pictures showing the efficacy being depicted via images of before and after usage of the product which are grossly misleading.

6.Philips Electronics India Ltd. (Philips Electric Shaver): The advertisement with a visual depiction of a shaving razor as a cactus and a concerned look on the model, read in conjunction with the claim, “Electric Shaver – Cut the hair not the skin”, is misleading as it implies that shaving razors cut the skin and not the hair (which was not substantiated), and unfairly denigrates shaving razors in general.

7.Wipro Enterprises Ltd. (Chandrika soap): The advertisement’s claim, “9 out of 10 girls claim that Chandrika soap gives them clear skin because it has 2 times more oil and ayurvedic contents than any other natural soaps” was not substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and implication as in the data provided by the advertiser was a quantitative study carried out by the advertiser is a consumer perception study conducted in year 2012 among users of Chandrika soap regarding product efficacy. There was no technical or clinical efficacy data presented to correlate the ingredients in the soap to product efficacy. There is no data submitted regarding the content of Ayurvedic herbs and its impact on product efficacy.

8.Active Roots: The advertisement’s claims, “India’s choice for hair transplant” and “India’s largest and most trusted hair transplant company”, were not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar clinics in the same category, or any third party validation or market research report to prove these claims. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.

9.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Dettol Liquid Handwash): The advertisement’s claim, “Sabun se saccha hai, sabun se accha hai” is misleading by ambiguity and implication that liquid handwash is better than bar soaps in providing protection from diseases and infection. The hold duration of the disclaimers in the advertisement is not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines.

FOOD & BEVERAGES:-

1.Borges India Private Limited (Borges Olive Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 Olive Oil”, was misleading by ambiguity as it depicted / was associated with all the variants of olive oil marketed by Borges India and not restricted to the product variant “Borges Olive Oil- Extra Light in Taste” alone.

2.Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd. (Seagram’s Royal Stag): The advertisement depicting the Royal Stag brand name and visual is a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Seagram’s Royal Stag. The advertisement is misleading by implication has reference to the words “Make it Large / Large jiyo” and contravened Chapters I.4 and III.6 (b) of the ASCI Code (“Whether there exists in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is restricted by this Code.”). Also, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per ASCI’s Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code (“Whether the unrestricted product which is purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used and the markets targeted.”).

3.Heinz India P. Ltd. (Complan Nutri Grow): The advertisement’s claim, “Complan Nutrigro has 11 immunity builders that increases immunity”, was not adequately substantiated in the age group of subjects for whom it is meant. Also, the advertisement targets normally nourished children (and potentially also certain categories like those with overactive immune systems) which was considered to be misleading by ambiguity as the advertised product may not build immunity in normal children with a normal diet.

4.Rakyan Beverages Limited (RAW Pressery): The advertisement’s claims, “best ways to rid your body of toxins.” and “Alkalizes your system and flushes out all your toxins”, were not substantiated with supporting scientific evidence. Also, the claim is misleading.

5.Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd. (Surya Salt): The advertisement’s claims, “Scientists believe that we can get freedom from joint pain after regularly consuming Sanbhar salt. Other than this we can also avoid all stomach diseases, Acidity and skin diseases”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. It was also of concern that this “food” product was promoted as a medical product with therapeutic claims.

6.Today Tea Ltd. (Today Premium Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Zero Fat”, “Rich in Calcium”, were not substantiated. Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity and implication.

7.K. Patel Phyto Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (Dot Shot): The advertisement’s claims, “Globally acclaimed, proven. Brighter morning after a hard partying night”, “Now no more morning blues, DOTSHOT an anti-hangover drink resolves it. DOTSHOT is a natural and safe drink to detoxify effect of alcohol from your body. It also replenishes vital electrolytes that overcome muscle cramps. It helps maintain muscle and nerve function. After that mad crazy night have the last shot of the night of anti-hangover drink and wake up fresh for a brighter morning ahead”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.

8.Hershey India Pvt. Ltd. (Hershey’s Spreads): The advertisement’s claim, “Goodness of almonds” which was attributed to the benefits of almond as a generic claim for a chocolate spread containing 3.0% almond paste, seen in conjunction with gesture in the visual implying improvement of intelligence and a voice over stating “badhate Bacchon ke liye” is misleading by ambiguity and implication.

9.Dabur India Ltd. (Real Wellnezz Jamun): The advertisement’s claim, “100% Juice content”, was substantiated, but the visual presentation of this claim in the advertisement is misleading by implication as it overly emphasizes on the visuals of Jamun in and around the 100% numerical drawn in purple juice, which implies that the product contains 100% jamun juice. The reference to mixed fruit juice in the advertisement is, in comparison, very fleeting.

10.Gajanand Foods Private Limited (Gajanand Hing): The advertisement’s claims, “New & Improved.”, “Controls Blood Sugar”, “Controls high blood pressure”, “Gives Relief in body pain”, “Effective for the problems of the teeth”, “Reduces the risk of cancer” and “Gives relief from skin problems”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. It was also of concern that this “food” product was promoted as a medical product with therapeutic claims.

OTHERS:

1.Fena Ltd. (Advanced Fena Detergent Powder): The advertisement’s claim “India’s No. 1 Quality Detergent Powder” was not adequately and undisputedly substantiated and the TVCs are misleading by ambiguity and implication as the product ranking and the disclaimer attempts to hide material information with respect to the claim – i) the ranking being among other low cost detergents and not among ALL marketed products to claim “All India” and ii) it pertained to overall score of the product and not “Quality” as claimed. The disclaimer in the Hindi advertisement is not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement. Also, the disclaimers in the TVCs are not in compliance with ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers.

2.Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (HP Ink Tank Printing): The advertisement shows an A4 size Black & White borderless photograph of Eiffel Tower being printed and the protagonist states that “Eiffel Tower sirf 10 paise mein”. It was noted that the 10 paise printing is possible only for certain limited coverage of black text matter (document printing) and not for a photographic image contrary to what is being depicted in the advertisement. It was also noted that the test sample and the photo used in the advertisement are very different, especially as the test sample is not about photo prints – it contains text, presentation sheets, small images (all pages with lots of unprinted area). Therefore the visual use of a photograph in the advertisement and emphasis on “re-invent the value of 10 paise” is misleading by gross exaggeration. Also, the disclaimers in the advertisement are not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement (Hindi), the disclaimer do not appear in conjunction with the claim and the hold duration of the disclaimers in the advertisement is not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines.

3.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (Reliance Jio Digital Life): The advertisement’s claim, “Best 4G Network with lowest data rates globally” is misleading by ambiguity and implication of it being among the best in the world.

4.TV Today Network Limited (Aaj Tak): The TV channel’s claims, “HSM Urban + Rural – No.1”, “HSM Urban – No.1”, “HSM Rural – No.1”, “All India Urban + Rural – No.1”, “All India Urban- No.1”, “All India Rural – No.1”, “Prime Time – No.1”, were not substantiated and are misleading. The advertiser has referred to BARC data as a source for these claims. It was noted that as per “BARC India Ratings – Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage” the period of comparison for any claim of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. However, as per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on single week (week 45’16) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. It was also opined, that continuing news update pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”. Therefore the basis for these claims with the source – “BARC TG15+ NCCS All, MKT: as mentioned, Time:- 2:00 – 26:00, 19:00 – 24:00, Period:- Wk:- 45”16, Share% based on 12 Hindi news channels”, was not acceptable. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The website advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication

5.TV Today Network Limited (Aaj Tak): The TV channel’s claim, “Aaj Tak’s urban viewership crossed India TV’s All India Viewership” – Source : BARC, 08 Nov 16, TG 15+ NCCS AB, Time Band 2000-2400, imp’000, was not acceptable as it was opined that news pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”. The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication. As per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on one day data (8th November 2016) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.

8.Kent RO Systems Ltd. (Kent Air Purifiers): The advertisement’s claim, “Air Purifier de sabse shudh Hawa”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

9.Global Consumer Products Private Limited (DND Turblo liquid vaporizer): The advertisement’s claim, “to give corner to corner mosquito prevention”, was inadequately substantiated as the test conducted did not check efficacy in the corners of a room of realistic shape and size, where stagnant dead spaces would be present despite forced convection. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The disclaimers in the advertisement are not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement (Hindi), and the hold duration of the disclaimers is not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines

10.Sapna Infoway Private Ltd.: The advertisement’s claim that the price claim of “Rs. 491 less Discount 5 % off i.e. Net Rs. 466” and the claim that the “book is out of stock”, is false and misleading.

11.Accelyst Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Freecharge): The advertisement’s claim, “Upto Flat 100% cashback”, in smaller text it says, “Maximum cashback Rs.100”. It was noted that a vast majority of items are well above Rs.100 and would thus not be able to get the 100% cashback. It was further noted that this claim is contradictory to the conditions stated and concluded that the claim offer is misleading as the cashback being offered is limited to Rs.100/-.

12.Vaayu Home Appliances (India) P. Ltd. (Vaayu Chiller): The advertisement’s claims, “Gives AC like cooling in the budget of a cooler” and “save up to 90 percent of electricity compared to an AC”, were not substantiated. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.

14.Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd (Television Division): Times Network in its slide has chosen to call its competition as ‘upstart’. In view of the other channels being established channels, the contention “Upstart competition” is not considered to be valid.